User talk:ElectionJune2015/Referenda/1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
This proposal could be outside [[CZ:Charter#Article 37|Article 37]], which states that referenda "must be written as enforceable rules or guidelines." It seems to me that this is more of a request, rather than something that could be set up as a rule or procedure. Having said that, I certainly agree that the approvals process should be reformed and simplified. We need something which starts from someone with an appropriate Editorship nominating a developed article and, if there are no objections, it just goes through. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | This proposal could be outside [[CZ:Charter#Article 37|Article 37]], which states that referenda "must be written as enforceable rules or guidelines." It seems to me that this is more of a request, rather than something that could be set up as a rule or procedure. Having said that, I certainly agree that the approvals process should be reformed and simplified. We need something which starts from someone with an appropriate Editorship nominating a developed article and, if there are no objections, it just goes through. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
:At present they can do just that, provided they've made no substantive edits to the article. Are you suggesting removing that restriction? | |||
:I forgot to mention above Anthony's proposal some time ago that we have some sort of lower grade of approval based on fact checking by non-specialists. I support that in principle, though, as I said at the time, details need thinking about. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 09:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:36, 30 May 2015
I am away from 29 May until after 14 June, without a computer of any sort, so will not see any comments or questions during that period. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll probably support this.
- One thought has occurred to me in this context. We used to have three grades of Citizens: General Editors, Specialist Editors and Authors. That was reduced to the current two by decision of the EC, I think. We might think about going the other way, more grades of qualifications, and corresponding grades of approval. Peter Jackson (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't recall that. There's still a page up describing categories of Editorship. I personally think that Speciality Editorships should be the default unless someone has a lot of experience etc. across more than one field. John Stephenson (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, such pages aren't always updated in accordance with Council decisions. For example, EC resolution PR-2010-014is about romanization of Chinese, but the page CZ:Romanization/Chinese hasn't been edited since 2009 and says it's not policy. And at present Darren hasn't managed to get the EC wiki back on line, so we can't actually find out what some of our policies are. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This proposal could be outside Article 37, which states that referenda "must be written as enforceable rules or guidelines." It seems to me that this is more of a request, rather than something that could be set up as a rule or procedure. Having said that, I certainly agree that the approvals process should be reformed and simplified. We need something which starts from someone with an appropriate Editorship nominating a developed article and, if there are no objections, it just goes through. John Stephenson (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- At present they can do just that, provided they've made no substantive edits to the article. Are you suggesting removing that restriction?
- I forgot to mention above Anthony's proposal some time ago that we have some sort of lower grade of approval based on fact checking by non-specialists. I support that in principle, though, as I said at the time, details need thinking about. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)